This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

I'm going to edit this page because I think the definition provided is incorrect. If someone is curious or disagrees, please look at the version prior to my edit. However, based on reading two of Ehrman's books and listening to his Teaching Company lectures I think that proto-orthodox is distinct from Marcionism, Ebionism, or gnostic groups, and I think that should be emphasized in the definition provided. --Jackson 05:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

i believe yours is incorrect/biased. i did my dissertation on the term proto-orthodox christianity.

You were correct, Jackson. The definition was incorrect and anon above was full of it.--Ari89 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Today, the stoicism ideology is still very intertwined with Proto-Orthodoxy. Many denominations within the Christian community practice sermons, which attempt to join dissimilar Christian texts in order to placate their idea of uniformity and the idea of the universal. Modern Christians still follow the stoic guideline of hubris;

"Hubris consists in doing or saying things that cause shame to the victim, not in order that anything may happen to you, nor because anything has happened to you, but merely for your own gratification.” [1]

This stoic trait of hubris, allows them to continue to refer to all other faiths as heretics, and to even dismiss and belittle other denominations as they have done all throughout time, which can be seen through the many wars, conquests, and attempted globaliziations continually done in order to proliferate the Christian priority.

It is unclear from your analysis whether the aggressive activity you claim is evidence of the supposed adherence to the hubris guideline, or the supposed adherence to the guideline is being presented as explanation of the alleged aggressive activity. Unfortunately for your presentation, you haven't provided evidence for either claim, neither of which are generally accepted, to say the least, and for this reason I am asking you to provide, if you wish to reintroduce this passage, clarification of cause and effect and relevant citation.

I don't understand what you mean by placating their of idea uniformity and the idea of the univeral; you don't placate ideas, you placate intelligent beings, so what kind of feelings are being placated? insecurities? wishes to have one's notions of good stewardship of revelation respected? I can't help mentioning you haven't provided any supporting evidence for whatever you're trying to say here, either.

And you say on this talk page you wrote your dissertation on this subject. Is this a dissertation for your international baccalaureat (international high school equivalent)? You say on your user page that you're an undergraduate. Aren't you afraid you might be in a little over your head? And are you aware that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view including both sides of an issue? Dissertations usually follow a thesis (one side of an issue). 64.154.26.251 01:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no definition of placate, and no definition of idea that makes placate the idea a meaningful phrase. Similarly, no definition of proliferate or priority that make it meaningful to proliferate a priority. There is something in the language that suggests that the writer is not a native English speaker. The comma after sermons seems to confirm this—it tells us that many denominations practise sermons (implying that a few don't), and that pretty well all these sermons attempt to "join" dissimilar texts, etc, etc. Omitting the comma would indicate that many denominations practise sermons of the heinous type described.

Is practice, with a c rather than an s used for the verb as well as the noun in American English?

In any case, to practise a sermon actually means to try it out first without an audience, or with a small one (who may be asked to critique it), before delivering it to the congregation.

I agree with you on the NPOV. This passage is definitely a polemic. Copey 2 08:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For your information, both groups would call them orthodox and catholic, since that is what they both claim to be. The "Catholic Church" and the "Orthodox Church" are just the common names they and others use to refer to the two separate communions. --73.143.110.74 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anything in the article to distinguish "proto-orthodox" as a concept. If you replaced every instance of "proto-orthodox" in the article with "early orthodox", the article would read fine, and relate rather well-known statements about the early church which a modern scholar or a scholar hundreds of years ago would agree with. What does the concept "proto-orthodox" bring beyond simply identifying the faction of early Christianity which has always been denoted as orthodox? Tpellman (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The term, to the extent that it is useful and meaningful, has been used to describe beliefs which LATER became orthodox but, at the time, where not yet dominant. The definition given here is of a movement that was ALREADY stifling opposition and ALREADY asserting that it had always been the "true" belief -- in other words, already "orthodox". 24.44.237.141 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)captcrisis

The paragraph "In the canonical gospels, Jesus is characterized as a Jewish faith healer who ministered ..." has me puzzled. It seems to state that the "proto-orthodox" took this view of Jesus, it appears under a heading which implies the claim. If the statement is made as a rebuttal of the "proto-orthodox" position this should be clearly indicated. It will then be open to question whether or not it is justified. Jpacobb (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That whole section must be written by someone who has chosen to completely disregard the four canonical Gospel texts. That Jesus is seen as majorly a faith-healer is more of a hearsay-style opinion, rather than a conclusion drawn from the only extensive records we have, namely the Gospels. Those texts are no less authoritative of the historicity of their content than any other text of the period for any other topic. And, those Gospel texts portray Jesus as a messianic figure who set himself apart from his contemporaries (including other messianic claimants) within which healing was only one facet of his ministry. The entire thrust of the Gospels is the dawning of the judeo-christian messianic age in ways which no one expected: the small beginning of the remaking of all things, of which "faith-healing" is one, perhaps even only symbolic, part of an entire world embarking on the journey of being set to rights, culminating in the (eschatological) Resurrection. For this was the hope of the martyrs from Augustus to Diocletian. It is specifically that messianic claim which was the basis of proto-Orthodox faith and council reasoning, and their conclusions. 99.22.228.93 (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so the article claims that Proto-orthodox Christianity (POC) solidified the NT canon, but then later also claims that the Epistle of Barnabas was especially important to them. Isn't that like saying, "Early United States citizens held true to the Bill of Rights and especially the Congressional Apportionment Amendment? There's no attempt to connect it to the rest, even. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus (330–360) contains the Epistle of Barnabas. The question is what canon was original; most of it is also canon today, but not in its entirety. And the decision over canon might have been taken later, but the process of solidification could have started at that time. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)